Hop, hop all the way to the bank !!!

“I think this is a silly poser. If we go by your reasoning, are you saying a commuter should not buy shares in SBST or SMRT as there is “coflict of interest”? Can you enlighten me?”

This is precisely the problem. National assets being privatised ? For what reason ? So that it can a free hand to increase rates / prices as and when they like it in the good & convenient name of a private company ?

To really compete, you need a free environment and not one skewed to benefit a few corporations and the people in it giving you the impression that they are ‘real’ private corporations having to really compete in the real private sector.

So that if people do not like, they can easily shift to the next best alternative (of course not the next expensive option of taxis / cabs).

You may have all the right dressing couched in the label of privatisation. But who is running the show and who is creating this creature in the first place with conflicting features – very good for discussion which can extract equally valid reasonings from both sides.

Does it help ? Well, you will know it is not if it hits your own pocket. I think you need to korek harder next time.

There will certainly be at least 1 who will attend. But he may be covert.
he may be collecting information.

change soup does not mean change medicine.

I will try to make an effort to go down Hong Lim park this Sat afternoon to support the speech.

So to all tired Singaporean, show your support! Go down to Hong Lim park this Sat 13 Sept to listen to what TOC wants to speak about our public transport system and its part in contributing to Singaporeans.

The bottomline – are all those titles just for show or they really mean something with actual work been contributed?

That’s a big question mark!

This kind of business conduct in representing all the 3 sides in a round table discussion (Example, fare hike for SBS/SMRT bus service) where 1/3 of the face represents the residents, 1/3 represent the company and 1/3 represents the bus company worker will not allow the MP to think objectively. This is such a “SHOW FACE” setup for a MP to represent so many different organization. There is simply too much CONFLICT within the MP herself when a decision has to be made.

Is there no other MPs to represent the different organization? Or having one person to represent all of these conflicting organization is much easier to “manage”?

Who stopping the commutter from buying share ? It is not that commuter have confidential info on the company’d decision and action. That is a hollow example. Now, when a chairman or executive post buying share in a company when he has confidential information, that is insider news and conflict of interest. Let’s not try to distract the main issue.

The main issue Andrew is asking whether there is a conflict of interest when a clown hold positions that in conflict with each other’s interest, one that link with government, GLC and citizen’s interest, and given a clown will likely to resort to interest that suit her and her master’s interest.

Hasnt’t we heard of Mrs Peanut who act blur and ignorance when NKF case blown out ? So how can a clown hold so many positions and still know what happen ?

There is conflict of interest when you wear 2 hats and you have certain influence on decisions that affect the public.
Commuters buying shares cannot be viewed as conflict of interest simply because they are in no position to influence decisions like Halimah.
The conflict of interest starts with the top.
LHL is PM, father is MM / GIC Chairman, wife, HC is CEO Temasek.
Who is checking who ? or who reports to who ?
Are we suppose to give them the benefit of the doubt ?
Then we should also extend that to every PAP MP moonlighting like Halimah.
Can Singapore continue with such arrangements ?
It just does not make sense to have people making decisions on our public transport system when such people are either wearing 2 hats or not commuters themselves.

Congrats for another world-class perfomance by our world class salary ministers n various Affiliation MPs.

SERIOUSLY SPEAKING, WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE N AIMS OF NTUC? i didnt know what NTUC is ever since i was born, except i notice that they have insurance agents selling policies on the streets and elected MPs in the office.

I think this is a silly poser. If we go by your reasoning, are you saying a commuter should not buy shares in SBST or SMRT as there is “coflict of interest”? Can you enlighten me?

Actually, the more fundamental question to pose is whether the board, or any board for that matter, is captured by a paricular member who has self-interest? Unlike charitable org or coperatives, what he or she represents/advocates is irrelevant in a lsited company. It is his or her value input in corporate governance to perform check and balance role on the management decisions that matters. I’m sure you know the separation between shareholders/ownership and management roles required by SGX, right?

Thanks

So no matter what we say it matters not cos the government has the final say. If they say there is no conflict of interest ,then it is so.

It’s no point giving examples of what transpires in other countries. As far as Singapore government is concerned. Don’t meddle into our affairs. It may not be feasible in other countries , in Singapore it is acceptable and it will stay that way till we say otherwise.

Change is taking place in america, in Malaysia etc. There can only be change in Sinngapore when the next election comes along. So we all got to wait till the next election but before then there will be a lot of goodies given out resulting ultimately in no change yet again!